CONTENTS
- 1. A US-Japan Project Worth 52 Trillion Won: What Changes Are Coming to the Trade Environment?
- - Japan's Strategic Choice: Strengthening the Economic Security Alliance and Anticipated Benefits for Companies
- - Features of the US-Japan Investment Structure and Shifts in International Trade Trends
- 2. The Special Act on Investment in the United States: The Coexistence of Policy Opportunity and Trade Uncertainty
- - Matters Companies Should Review
- 3. Key Risks That May Arise for Companies
- - The Normalization of Tariff Risk
- - Regulatory Risk Depending on the Investment Structure
- - Supply Chain Realignment and Contract Risk
- - Financial and Tax Structuring Burdens
- 4. Matters Companies Should Review First
- 5. The Need for an Integrated Response Framework Combining Overseas, Tariff, and Investment Issues
- - Daeryun's Response Strategy
1. A US-Japan Project Worth 52 Trillion Won: What Changes Are Coming to the Trade Environment?
The United States and Japan have officially announced the first project under a 52 trillion won investment program directed toward the United States.
The investment centers on energy and advanced strategic industries, including gas-fired power generation, crude oil export infrastructure, and synthetic diamond manufacturing facilities.
The noteworthy point lies less in the investment itself than in its background.
President Trump stated directly that “it would not have been possible without tariffs,” which indicates that a structure using tariffs as leverage to induce strategic investment by allied countries is becoming a reality.
Within this trend, Korea is likewise facing simultaneous changes in its trade environment, including the possibility of renewed tariff increases, demands to expand investment in the United States, and related legislative pressure.
Japan's Strategic Choice: Strengthening the Economic Security Alliance and Anticipated Benefits for Companies
Prime Minister Takaichi emphasized that this investment project directed toward the United States represents cooperation between the United States and Japan to build supply chains in core economic security fields such as critical minerals, energy, and AI and data centers.
Accordingly, Japanese companies are also expected to secure opportunities for revenue growth and business expansion through the supply of equipment and machinery.
According to NHK reports, major companies such as Toshiba, Hitachi, Mitsubishi Electric, SoftBank, Nippon Steel, and JFE Steel are reportedly reviewing or expressing interest in participating in the project.
This agreement was reached through additional negotiations after the Trump administration expressed dissatisfaction with delays in Japan's investment in the United States, and it illustrates a negotiating structure that combines tariff pressure with investment demands.
Accordingly, the possibility of similar investment pressure on Korea in the future also warrants attention.
Features of the US-Japan Investment Structure and Shifts in International Trade Trends
Under this project, Japan provides the capital and constructs strategic infrastructure within the United States.
The target industries for investment, namely energy generation facilities, crude oil export hubs, and industrial synthetic diamond production facilities, are all connected to economic security and the realignment of supply chains.
This reflects the following trends.
• Packaging investment around strategic industries
• A trade strategy combining supply chains and economic security
• Using investment commitments to induce relaxation of tariff and trade conditions
The United States is strengthening its strategy of relocating technology, energy, and critical materials sectors within its own borders, and it tends to require similar structures of its allied countries.
2. The Special Act on Investment in the United States: The Coexistence of Policy Opportunity and Trade Uncertainty
Within Korea, the Special Act on Investment in the United States is establishing a basis for policy support for strategic-industry investment in the United States.
This framework is structured to ease the burden of investing in the United States by creating a strategic investment fund, establishing a dedicated investment corporation, and providing a basis for policy financing and guarantee support.
If it is linked to tariff reduction negotiations, an improvement in export competitiveness may also be anticipated.
In other words, at the governmental level, mechanisms to institutionally support the expansion of investment in the United States are being put in place.
Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court found that the broad global tariffs the Trump administration imposed on the basis of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were an unlawful act exceeding the authority granted to the President.
The administration has, however, indicated its position that, instead of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, it may impose tariffs on the basis of existing trade statutes such as Section 122 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
Accordingly, it is difficult to conclude that the legal uncertainty surrounding US trade policy has been fully resolved.
Ultimately, the current trade environment can be viewed as a structure in which the expansion of policy support and the possibility of institutional shifts in tariff risk exist at the same time.
This suggests a shift toward an environment in which companies must review investment opportunities while also maintaining an ongoing system for monitoring changes in tariffs and regulations.
Matters Companies Should Review
At the corporate level, the following additional reviews are required.
• Reviewing post-support obligation conditions, such as maintaining employment and maintaining investment
• Analyzing the possibility of changes to conditions after support is received
• Reviewing the risk of clawback or sanctions in the event of policy changes
Support programs may present an opportunity, but where the structure is not adequately designed in advance, they may turn into a long-term burden.
3. Key Risks That May Arise for Companies
The key risks that may arise for companies are as follows.
The Normalization of Tariff Risk
There is a possibility that particular industries will repeatedly become subjects of negotiation.
The automobile, semiconductor, battery, energy equipment, and critical materials industries may be directly affected by changes in tariff policy.
Tariff fluctuations have cascading effects on pricing policy, margin structures, and long-term supply contracts.
Regulatory Risk Depending on the Investment Structure
The applicable regulatory framework differs depending on the method used, such as direct investment, joint-venture investment, or strategic equity participation in the United States.
• Federal and state-level permits and approvals
• Environmental and labor regulations
• Foreign investment review (CFIUS)
• Controls on technology transfer and data transfer
Strategic industries in particular are subject to a trend of intensified review from an economic security perspective.
Supply Chain Realignment and Contract Risk
Expanding local production carries the possibility of conflict with existing global supply contracts.
• Renegotiation of OEM contracts
• Changes to technology licensing terms
• Review of price adjustment clauses in long-term supply contracts
• Redesign of the risk-sharing structure
Supply chain realignment is not merely a matter of relocating production; it entails a comprehensive overhaul of the contractual structure.
Financial and Tax Structuring Burdens
Tax benefits, transfer pricing issues, and local tax risks vary depending on the method of investment.
An analysis of federal and state-level tax incentive conditions should therefore be carried out beforehand.
4. Matters Companies Should Review First
Companies that are considering direct investment, joint-venture investment, or relocating production to the United States, or that are affected by tariff fluctuations, should review the following matters in advance.
• Comparing the legal structures of direct investment, joint-venture investment, and relocation of local production
• Reviewing investment incentive conditions and post-investment obligation clauses
• Reviewing the framework for responding to regulations on technology transfer and data transfer
• Reorganizing the risk-sharing structure in supply chain contracts
The Special Act on Investment in the United States may provide a policy opportunity, but where the investment structure is not adequately designed, the possibility that it will turn into a long-term legal and financial burden cannot be ruled out.
5. The Need for an Integrated Response Framework Combining Overseas, Tariff, and Investment Issues
For investment in the United States and tariff risk, a review under domestic law alone is not sufficient.
Because US federal and state regulations, foreign investment review, trade disputes, and local tax and labor regulations all operate at the same time, an integrated response is required.
Daeryun Law Firm analyzes overseas investment, tariff, and economic security risks in an integrated manner through the following measures.
Daeryun's Response Strategy
Area of Support | Key Details |
Collaboration With US Local Law Firm SJKP | Analysis of US federal and state regulations, advance review of permit, labor, environmental, and tax regulations, integrated review of local legal risks |
CFIUS and Economic Security Regulatory Response | Advance review of foreign investment review (CFIUS), analysis of technology and data transfer controls, response to approval procedures related to strategic industries |
Collaboration With Tariff Specialists | Diagnosis of tariff risk by product item, review of country-of-origin and HS code classification, response to tariff disputes and trade investigations |
Investment Contract and Joint-Venture Structuring | Structuring of direct investment and joint-venture investment, analysis of governance risk, reorganization of risk-sharing and contract terms |
Review of Government Support Conditions | Review of support requirements under the Special Act on Investment in the United States and similar measures, analysis of employment and investment maintenance conditions, review of the risk of subsequent clawback or sanctions |
Reorganization of Global Supply Chain Contracts | Reexamination of OEM, supply, and technology licensing contracts, reorganization of price adjustment and risk-sharing clauses, design of contracts responding to supply chain realignment |
In particular, through collaboration with local US specialists, regulatory and practical risks that domestic companies may easily overlook can be reviewed in advance.
Following the enforcement of the Special Act on Investment in the United States, a company's investment strategy should be understood as part of its strategy for managing trade risk.
Where a specific review of overseas investment and tariff-related matters is needed, a tailored analysis matched to the characteristics of the industry and the business structure can be provided.
This is a point at which an advance diagnosis of trade strategy and the investment structure as a whole may be warranted.
🔗Schedule a Legal Consultation With a Corporate Attorney to review specific directions for your response.
